BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A music video showing Primal Scream's Kowalski appeared on "Coca Cola Video

Hits" on TV2 on 17 May 1997 broadcast between 10.00–11.00am.

Mr Moore of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster,

that the music video glorified violence, mocked the Catholic church and showcased

lesbianism, and should not have been shown at a time when children were watching

television unsupervised. He sought an assurance from TVNZ that it would not play

the video again.

TVNZ responded that the programme was directed at a teenage audience and noted

that its viewers would be familiar with the music played because it was currently

popular. It did not believe the imagery strayed outside the accepted norms of taste

and decency of the target audience, that there was gratuitous violence, that the

Catholic church was mocked or that the item "showcased lesbianism". Declining to

uphold the complaint, TVNZ observed that it was very wary of interfering too much

with the musical tastes of a younger generation, and suggested that prudence and

tolerance should be its guide. Dissatisfied with that decision, Mr Moore referred the

complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

One of the music videos which featured on "Coca Cola Video Hits" on Saturday 17

May 1997 broadcast between 10.00am and 11.00am on TV 2 was Primal Scream's

Kowalski. The programme is a weekly show which introduces new musical releases.

Mr Moore complained that the video glorified vicious violence, mocked the Catholic

church and showcased lesbianism. He considered it unsuitable for broadcast at a time

when young children could be expected to be watching television, and argued that the

epidemic of violence, substance abuse, casual sex, abortion, and every negative

influence they inflicted on society was worsened by videos such as this.

When it considered the complaint, TVNZ assessed it against standards G2, G12, G13,

V2 and V4 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first three standards

require broadcasters:

G2   To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and

taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which

any language or behaviour occurs.

G12  To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children

during their normally accepted viewing times.

G13  To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently

inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of

the community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupation

status, sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or

political belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the

broadcast of material which is:

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or

current affairs programme, or

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or

dramatic work.

The other standards read:

V2   When obviously designed for gratuitous use to achieve heightened

impact, realistic violence – as distinct from farcical violence – must be

avoided.

V4   The combination of violence and sexuality in a way designed to titillate

must not be shown.

TVNZ noted first that the programme was broadcast during PGR time. PGR material

is defined as:

Programmes containing material more suited to adult audiences but not

necessarily unsuitable for child viewers when subject to the guidance of a

parent or adult.

It therefore challenged Mr Moore's statement that it was a time when young children

could be watching television without adult supervision, emphasising that the Code of

Practice clearly identified it as PGR viewing time. TVNZ also suggested that

programmes for older children should be offered on Saturday mornings, noting that the

early hours were set aside for younger viewers, then there was a slot for older

children, followed by the time for teenagers and young adults.

With respect to the specifics of the complaint, TVNZ responded that the violence

was implied rather than shown explicitly. It conceded there was a message of

intimidation in the music, but maintained that it was no more explicit than much of the

other modern music available. TVNZ considered the music was presented as fantasy

and rejected the suggestion that it "glorified vicious violence".

To the complaint that the video "mocked the Catholic church", TVNZ confessed to

not understanding why the footage of the prelate was used. It believed that it

appeared to be satirical in nature, and thus was one of the exceptions under standard

G13. It concluded that the reference to the church was intended as a satirical dig at the

ritual which accompanied religious observance.

Turning to the complaint that the video "showcased lesbianism", TVNZ responded

that though there may be a hint the women were lesbians, no sexual activity was

shown. It noted that there was no standard preventing showing gay people, and failed

to see what harm such an innuendo could cause.

TVNZ did not consider the video exceeded the boundaries of good taste in the context

of a music programme aimed at a teenage and young adult audience. With respect to

the complaint that it was not mindful of children and thus breached standard G12,

TVNZ reminded the complainant that the programme was broadcast in PGR time, and

that by its title, it was clear the programme was not aimed at the very young. As far

as standard G13 was concerned, it did not believe any person or group was

represented as inherently inferior. It considered the picture of the churchman was

satirical.

Turning to the complaints that the video breached violence standards, TVNZ argued

that the violence was implied and not realistic or gratuitous, and thus did not breach

standard V2. It advised that it was unable to detect any combination of sexuality and

violence in contravention of standard V4. It concluded that no broadcasting standards

were breached.

As a final observation, TVNZ advised that it was wary of interfering too much in the

musical tastes of a younger generation, suggesting that prudence and tolerance should

be a guide.

The Authority confesses to having found the video difficult to understand. Its

research reveals that the group Primal Scream is an English group and that their song

Kowalski has not appeared in sales charts since it was introduced on the programme.

The Authority finds that the song contained a number of allusions to American

popular culture and literature, possibly including some obscure references to a black

activist and to an American film of the 70s. However the music it found unintelligible,

the lyrics difficult to distinguish and the visuals somewhat tasteless. It recognises that

in the mainstream of popular music, this video is unexceptional. Its disjointed images,

rapid scene changes, bleakness and focus on the more unpleasant aspects of human

behaviour appear to be typical of the genre.

Bearing that context in mind, the Authority now turns to the allegations that the video

breached several broadcasting standards. With respect to the complaint that it

contained images which exceeded the boundaries of good taste, the Authority

concludes that given the contextual considerations – the genre, and the audience at

whom it is directed – there is no breach of the standard.

Turning to the complaint that TVNZ had not been mindful of the effect of the video

on children when it placed it on the Saturday morning time slot, the Authority

considers TVNZ's submission that it was legitimate to play it during PGR time, since

that timeslot signals to parents and caregivers that parental discretion is required. The

Authority accepts the complainant's contention that for younger children, Saturday

mornings are a time when they could reasonably expect to enjoy programmes intended

for them specifically. It considers it somewhat anomalous that the Codes of Practice

permit PGR time as early as 9.00am on weekend mornings, as it also seems to the

Authority logical that that is a time when younger children should be able to enjoy

television without adult supervision. It notes that "Coca Cola Video Hits" is screened

between 10.00 and 11.00am, following several half hour long programmes rated G,

which are designed for younger viewers. Unless viewers – and their parents or

caregivers – are acquainted with the programme guide and have information about the

classification system, it would not necessarily be anticipated that there was a change

in programming as early as 10.00am on a Saturday morning.

This is the first time the Authority has had to consider a complaint that a Saturday

morning programme was unsuitable for its audience. It has some sympathy with the

complainant. It does not find the material in the video suitable for an audience of

children. However, under the present classification zones, the placement of the

programme is permissible in the time band. Although it is unable to uphold the

complaint, the Authority is examining the issue of classifications and time zones in its

current review of Pay Television, and the suitability of programmes for children in

daytime hours in the weekends is a matter which it will discuss with broadcasters

when the review is released.

Next, the Authority deals with the complaint that the video denigrated the Catholic

church by its brief shot of the prelate. The Authority did not understand the relevance

of the shot, or its context. However, it was a very brief sequence, which it considered

neutral in its impact and not likely to be capable of denigrating the church or its

officers. It declines to uphold this aspect.

Finally, the Authority turns to the complaint that the video contained gratuitous

violence, and combined violence with sexuality, thus breaching standards V2 and V4.

The Authority acknowledges there were aggressive, anti-social sequences, such as

when the two women held the man's head down in a bowl of cereal, when one of them

jumped on his leg, and when one invited the attention of another young man and when

he came forward, punched him and knocked him over. However aggressive these

incidents were, they were stylised, and would be recognised as such by most viewers

in the teenage and young adult age group. In that context, the Authority finds no

breach of the violence standards, although, as noted above, it understands the

complainant's concern about the suitability of such material for younger children. It

intends to address this matter in the near future.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
21 August 1997

Appendix

W M Moore's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 24 May 1997

Mr Moore of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast

of a music video on TV2 on 17 May 1997 at about 10.45am breached broadcasting

standards.

The video was Primal Scream's Kowalski, which Mr Moore described as "the worst

garbage" he had seen since emigrating from the United States four years ago. He

complained that the video glorified vicious violence, mocked the Catholic church, and

showcased lesbianism.

Mr Moore was unhappy that the video was aired and was angry that his broadcasting

fee was being used to help pay for the screening of the video. He was also outraged

that it was played on a Saturday morning at a time when his 8 year old son could

watch it unsupervised. He wrote:

The epidemic of violence, substance abuse, casual sex, abortion, and every

negative that they inflict on society, is not caused by videos like the one

named above, but it is worsened. Society is in trouble, and TVNZ, an SOE,

has to be responsible for its actions and impact.

Mr Moore sought from TVNZ an assurance that it would never play the video again

as well as information on its mission statement and the process for making

complaints.

TVNZ responded to the complaint advising Mr Moore that it would assess the

complaint under standards V2 and G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice.

In a letter dated 1 June, Mr Moore responded that he was unable to confirm whether

the complaint should be considered under the standards named since he had no

information - which he requested - on the complaints process.

He requested a copy of the Codes of Broadcasting Practice and TVNZ's mission

statement before TVNZ considered his complaint.

TVNZ provided a copy of the principal programme standards and its statement of

objectives in a letter dated 3 June.

On 8 June, Mr Moore advised that he wished the complaint to be considered under

standards G2, G12, G13, V2 and V4. He considered TVNZ violated its own

Statements of Objectives because by airing the video, it was not acting with "social

responsibility". As an additional comment, Mr Moore asked whether the report that

TVNZ was considering airing the MTV programmes was correct, and if it was, to

provide details. He concluded:

MTV must accept a great deal of responsibility for the US epidemic of

violence, teen depression and suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual

promiscuity and the health, social and spiritual illnesses that follow. Airing

MTV programming in New Zealand will without doubt worsen these grievous

problems in New Zealand.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 17 June 1997

TVNZ began by observing that the formal complaints procedure was set down in

statute and that complaints could only refer to s.4 or to the Codes of Practice and

could not be made on the basis of TVNZ's statement of objectives.

TVNZ noted that the programme "Coca Cola Video Hits" was broadcast during PGR

time, and that PGR material is defined as:

Programmes containing material more suited to adult audiences but not

necessarily unsuitable for child viewers when subject to the guidance of a

parent or adult.

It therefore challenged Mr Moore's statement that it was a time when his 8 year old

son could be expected to be watching television without adult supervision. It also

observed that during a Saturday morning programmes should be offered to viewers

older than his son's age group, and pointed out that the two hours prior to "Coca Cola

Video Hits" were reserved for the younger age group with the programme "What

Now?"

"Coca Cola Video Hits" was, TVNZ continued, aimed at a teenage audience. Its

viewers would therefore be familiar with the material since the songs were among

those on the top twenty, or were about to break into the chart. It stated that there

was nothing wrong with presenting a weekly line up of popular music for the teenage

and young adult audience.

Turning to the specifics of the complaint, TVNZ took the view that the violence was

implied rather than explicit. It considered the video was presented as fantasy and did

not see it as glorifying violence.

TVNZ did not agree that the video mocked the Catholic church, noting first that it was

unclear why the shot of the churchman appeared, and that it appeared to be satirical

and therefore excluded under the exemption in standard G13 (iii). Secondly, it argued

that it was not clear that the man was a Catholic and that he could have just as easily

been Church of England Archbishop. TVNZ suggested that the brief shot was

intended as a satirical dig at the rituals of religious observance.

Regarding the "showcasing of lesbianism", TVNZ noted that though there was a hint

that the couple were lesbians, no sexual activity was shown. Furthermore it noted

that there was no standard which prevented gay people being portrayed.

TVNZ did not consider the video strayed outside the norms of taste and decency of

the target audience, and therefore did not breach standard G2.

With respect to standard G12, TVNZ noted again that the programme was aimed at a

teenage audience and broadcast within PGR time. It believed it had been mindful of

the effect on young people by placing the item within the hit music setting, which was

the preserve of a specific age group.

As far as standard G13 was concerned, it did not believe any person or group was

represented as inherently inferior, and regarded the picture of the churchman as

satirical and therefore exempt under standard G13(iii).

Regarding the alleged breach of standard V2, TVNZ did not believe the implied

violence was gratuitous. In any case, it was presented as being in the realm of fantasy

and not realistic.

Finally in regard to standard V4, TVNZ did not consider the video combined violence

and sexuality in a manner designed to titillate.

TVNZ declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint, and made the observation that

musical tastes change over the years, and suggested that prudence and tolerance be a

guide when looking at the music of another generation.

W M Moore's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 21 June 1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Moore referred the complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Moore commented first that just because TVNZ designated the Saturday morning

time frame as PGR, it did not prevent or inhibit younger children from watching,

especially if they had already been watching cartoons by themselves. He considered

that what children and young adults watched on television affected their behaviour and

outlook. He wrote:

Common sense, and numerous studies, link today's epidemic of youth crime,

suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual promiscuity, disease and abortion to

what is so casually aired on television.

He challenged TVNZ's suggestion that a video could show virtually anything so long

as the content was considered satire or fantasy, and asked for an example of something

which would not fall within someone's definition of satire or fantasy.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 1 July 1997

TVNZ submitted that it was not unreasonable for it to identify certain times during

which to provide entertainment for older children. It suggested that the time between

10 am and noon had become established as a time when a young teenage audience

could enjoy their popular music.

It repeated that the time between 9am and 4pm was designated in the Codes of

Broadcasting Practice as PGR time. It also submitted that its programming schedules

showed a gradation from the early morning material for the very young, through to the

under 12s and then to the music for teenagers.

While it respected Mr Moore's view that the content of the programme and of the

video in particular was "garbage", it suggested that the view was not shared by the

tens of thousands of teenagers who enjoyed contemporary music without it "affecting

their lives".

Mr Moore's Final Comment

Mr Moore did not respond to the invitation to make a brief final comment.

LIINZ